INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL JUNNAR SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN ()
PER BENCH
These three appeals by the Revenue are directed against three separate orders, all dated 30.06.2025, passed by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-
18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively. As common issue in dispute is involved in all three appeals, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by convenience.
2. As identical grou the quantum of dedu raised in the assessm
1. On facts a the assessee
80P(2)(a)(i) of provided und banks.
2. The Ld. CI fulfils all the c the Banking R a "primary co deduction und
3. The Ld. CI
Hon'ble ITAT years and in Credit Society applicability o relevant asse
4. The Ld. CIT year is indepe not binding underlying f examined afre
5. The order o intent behind recorded by activities and 3. Briefly stated, registered Co-operat
1979 under the Ma
Vishal Junnar way of this consolidated order unds have been raised in all the uction involved, for sake of brev ment year 2017-18 are reproduc and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allow e's claim for deduction under Sect f the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the der Section 80P(4) applicable to co-operat
IT(A) failed to appreciate that the asses conditions laid down under Section 5(ccv
Regulation Act, 1949, thereby qualifying o-operative bank" and making it ineligible der Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
IT(A) erred in relying on the decisions of T in the assessee's own cases for ear n the case of Quepem Urban Co-operat y Ltd., without independently evaluating of Section 80P4 based on the facts of ssment year.
T(A) failed to consider that each assessm endent and that reliance on earlier orders where the statutory provisions a facts have been properly applied a esh during the currem Assessment of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the legislat d Section SOP) and the factual findin the Assessing Officer based on d bye-laws.
facts of the case are that the tive Credit Society, incorporat aharashtra State Co-operative
ITA No. 4880, 4859 &
4872/MUM/2025
2
r Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd for the sake of e appeals except vity, the grounds ed as under:
wing tion bar tive see v) of g as for the rlier tive the the ment s is and and tive ngs the e assessee is a ed in the year e Societies Act,
It was establis facilities exclusively principles of co-opera governed and regula operative Societies, M 3.1 The assessee fi Years (AYs) 2017–1 26.09.2018 and 13.1 Nil and Nil respectiv section 143(1) of the were thereafter selec issued and complie respective years, the claim of deduction reasoning that the a operative bank and, deduction. 3.2 On appeal, the [CIT(A)] allowed the decisions of the Trib and 2014–15 (ITA N 1288/Mum/2021), w the mischief of sectio Vishal Junnar shed with the avowed object of y to its members in accord ation, mutual aid, and self-help ated by the Commissioner & R Maharashtra State. iled its returns of income for t 18, 2018–19 and 2020–21 o 11.2020, declaring incomes of vely. The returns were duly p e Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the A cted for scrutiny and statutor d with. In the assessments e Assessing Officer disallowed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of t ssessee was in substance func in view of section 80P(4), was learned Commissioner of Incom deduction by placing reliance unal in assessee’s own cases fo Nos. 7752/Mum/2019, 7753/M wherein the assessee was held n on 80P(4). ITA No. 4880, 4859 & 4872/MUM/2025 3 r Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd providing credit dance with the p. The Society is